No bail? To lock you up all the state has to do is accuse you, or am I misunderstanding?
Well, not really. The police can question you for 6+6 hours (you have the right to the lawyer of your choice), and then they have to press some form of charges. After that a "custody hearing" has to take place "as soon as possible, though no later than 48 hours after being taken in custody". There a judge will decide if the case against you is strong enough to go to trial at all (at that time), or if the charges are severe enough and there is sufficient risk of flight or disturbing the investigation, that you should remain incarcerated pending trial.
So it's not unlike the US system only that there is no bail. In the cases were a US judge would deny bail a Swede would be held in custody, and in the cases where the US judge would say "bail set at", the Swede would go free, withouth having to pay any bail.
If the trial comes out "innocent", then you will be compensated (quite handsomely) for the time spent incarcerated, so it's a form of bail in reverse. You don't pay to stay out of jail, you get paid to spend time in jail.:-)
Also, if you haven't been convicted of a crime you won't see any other prisoners, there's no "drunk tank" or similar here. You get single accomodation, both when arrested and in jail. So there's no risk of "innocent" people being forced to spend time with real criminals.
Can the State drown the defendant in prosecuting lawyers whereas the defendant is only entitled to one lawyer, or it is one prosecutor and one defender?
Well, I don't know the specifics about Norway, but in Sweden it is one prosecutor. However, he is also formally the head of the police investigation team, so he has some help there also. As such he has a sworn duty to try and find the truth, and hence if he uncovers anything that would tend to exhonorate the defendant he has to take that into account in trial as well (i.e. has to make it known to the court), so at least in theory he's (to some small extent) working for you in court as well, though in practice it may not be perfect.
Note though that the prosecutor is a civil servant, i.e. not elected, so you won't see "show trials" just for the publicity. Prosecutors are fairly anonymous people here.
Also, there's often another lawyer on the prosecutors "team", that's there to represent the interests of the victim, not the state, in cases where damages to the victim may be awarded (we don't typically do a separate civil suit for that, though there's nothing stoping it in theory). Thus the verdict can come down as "three years in prison, a fine and damages paid to the victims). I don't know if that's done in the US?
It's not a perfect system. But on balance it's not a bad system either.
Hey, do you think they'll give up after only two retrials?
They have to. The next higher court (the "highest court") is the last stop. No case can go further. If the high court decides to hear it (as they probably should) then it becomes a precedent.
P.S. And they aren't retrials per se. The Norwegian, and Swedish, legal systems allow for a maximum of three trials in succedingly higher courts. And only the highest court can set a precedent.
Also, no plea bargains, no jury (only laypersons that sit for a longer term), no bail, and the state pays for your lawyer of choice who can claim according to a set (fairly generous) standard (there are no criminal attorneys that operate outside of that system).
When the rest of Europe becomes like Sweden (in the next 20 years or so) thats when revolution will take hold.
Well, if you had actually known anything about anything, you'd know that save for the Angolosaxons (on both sides of the Atlantic, we've already had the revolution. And we're doing quite fine as a result thank you very much.
What is most amusing as well is how not only is Swedish culture dead, but Swedes have the highest rate of miscegenation in Europe. Soon, the Swedish People will disappear into the mongrolized horde...
"What a start to a day / starts three times with a K", comes to mind. I'm afraid we tried the "revolution" you're after in the thirties in Europe, and we didn't much care for it.
But since we're not trying to have a civil conversation anyway, why not just decend into name calling and be done with it. You sir, are a fuckwit.
I'll agree with the substance of virtually all of that, except for the bit about population density.
It might hold true for Europe as a whole - think of Benelux - but there are some very large and sparsely populated countries which must drag the average down. These will be: White Russia (Bylorussia?), Ukraine, Norway and of course Sweden.
Well, yes that's true. But that should actually strenghten my argument right? The average is higher than the US despite the fact that there are large areas that are virtually uninhabited. Which I guess is true of the US as well, but fact remains that barring the urban centers, you have more space than us. We don't have a problem with urban sprawl in central Europe. There simply isn't anywhere to sprawl to.
And I'm not sure we were desperately poor even going back a century and a half. Sweden in particular has always had raw materials such as iron ore and lumber. We weren't a technological society though, that's true. (But that was true of most of Europe as well). Industrialisation left a lot of people without a job which we conveniently exported to the USA, about 1/5 of Swedens population at the time emigrated.
Keeping out of wars I would say was more a result of having the socialist revolution in 1920 (the first bloodless one, through the socialist democratic workers party winning the 1920 elections; btw only men of means could vote then which is interesting). Sweden has had it share of wars before that, having been a superpower, and had our population almost eradicated in parts of Sweden as a result. "Never again."
You're right about Americans going to the same vaccation spots we do, i.e. southern Spain, Italy, parts of southern France and the like and judging "Europe" by it. Fact of the matter is that the same "socialism" is in effect in the EU, Sweden paying billions each year that gets transferred to poorer regions to keep them afloat.
It would be as if we judged all of the US by what's shown on Bay watch. Or in my case from upstate NewYork. I've been to Troy New York, didn't make the US seem very affluent. (And incidentally, don't worry about the light in which the US is put through Baywatch, we see it as the sun-and-fun lightweight story it is/was. If you want to worry, worry about Jerry Springer and his ilk. Much worse/more effective propaganda, and it works an many levels to).
While I agree that some degree of socialism is necessary to ameliorate the harsher aspects of capitalism, I would strongly disagree that the Scandanavian's methods are the way to go. So while everyone thinks Sweden's a socialist paradise, their per capita GDP is actually lower than the poorest state in the US. So while the least well off are assured some minimal level of comfort, it restricts an even greater majority of the population from making full use of their abilities.
If you've traveled extensively through Europe, I think you'll be shocked by how much lower their standard of living is compared with the respective classes in the US except for the very poor. However, in the US it's not all that hard to avoid or climb out of poverty.
This is so backwards I don't even know where to begin (and BTW the top margin tax in Sweden is 55% not 75%, 10% of the workforce pay it. Like in that's the definition of how many pay it, so of course, "too few people make enough", we set the cut off to make it the top 10% The rest pay around 30% income tax.). And I live here, and have likewise travelled extensively in the US. Comparing with the american part of the family yes, they make a lot more money, that can't buy them one iota more of standard, since the cost of living is much higher. The GDP as a means of doing comparisons isn't all that's it's cranked up to be.
You also have to realise that much of the difference in material wealth between the well to do Swede and the well to do American is a matter of culture and choice. We're just not as consumerist as you. We don't hang in malls growing up, we don't work overtime to be able to afford more useless crap to nearly the same extent you do.
But don't take my word for it, check out the studies where Sweden or the other nordic countries always and consitenly rank better than the US as a better place to live, work, be a mother, you name it. Hit Google, you know you want to.
If I were an American I know that I wouldn't have an education (to the level I have now, I simply couldn't have aforded it), I'd most likely be out of a job as a result thereof, and therefore not even have access to health care. How the hell would that be better, and make me able to "better use my abilities"?
And if you're like most Americans the shockingly low standard of living has more to do with the differences in living space than anything else. Newsflash, Europe is twice as heavily populated as the US, there's simply no room to sprawl (cities/houses/fat arses) they way you do.
I would, however, disagree with you on PhD students not taking up hard problems.
Well, I canot remember if I said it that strongly, but in either case I didn't mean that in the absolute. PhD students don't tend to work on hard problems because it's not the smart thing to do, you'd be rightly discouraged. Your own anecdote even corroborates that. Had he choosen a different problem he'd be out of there already, on to bigger and better things.
I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing, someone has to tackle the difficult stuff otherwise we'll never make any progress. I'm just pointing out that even though many belive that PhD students are the ones doing this, that's not really true. They're few and far between, and that's not surprising, since doing that leads to a failed PhD more often than not, and that's a shame on good people when it happens. It's the people at the very beginning (i.e. before they start their PhD work), or at the very end (i.e. after their retirement, if you can talk of such in academia) that have time to spend on the long odds investigations. Didn't Einstein spend the last 15 years of his life chasing after a unification of his earlier theories? He never came even close, but at that point that didn't matter.
1. It was her job. (she is a grad student and a teaching asst, therefore has a JOB even if it way underpaid).
3. She is not a "college kid" as you put it, but a PhD student (she does not fit into the same drug-imbibing, all-night partying picture)
Well, you're actually technically wrong on both counts. First according to the dept's webpage she's not a PhD student, she's a teaching assistant (amanuens). And thus her job is actually to teach, not to do research.
No doubt she was given the amanuensis position in anticipation of becoming a PhD student, but since Sweden changed their PhD acceptance criteria, departments have become wary of accepting students (there aren't as many positions available these days). (My own department for example had 120 applicants for four positions this year, you basically had to have published papers to even get in as a PhD student). Hence departments like to pull stunts such as these, i.e. hiring someone beforehand as e.g. a TA (or similar) to see if they can do the work before comitting to taking them on. I'd say she passed...:-)
As to why students (as in undergrads) have come up with breakthroughs as of late my own theory is that they are the ones that can actually work on these problems, having nothing to lose. As a PhD student that's not a smart thing to do, see my other post on this topic.
College students are the ones who tend to have the time for it, just like college students are often the major contributers to open-source projects.
Well, almost (depending on who you define 'it', granted). PhD students also have time, but if you were to go to your supervisor and exclaim you want to work on 'famous' problems you'd be discouraged, and rightly so. The thing with being a PhD student is that you're supposed to do work that will lead to publications, and spending time on something that's been researched for a hundred years isn't likely to.
For an undergrad though, the situation is different. If you were to say to the same supervisor that you'd like to work on a famous problems they'd be all for it. They wouldn't think you'd make any progress on the solution but it'd be a great learning experience, and since your survival is guaranteed by other means, it's quite OK to fail.
Compare Turing if you will, who as an undergrad proved the law of large numbers (if memory serves). That had already been proven twenty years earlier, but Turing didn't know about that result. Hence his professors were quite impressed with his results, and as a result admitted him for higher studies. As a modern day PhD student that would have been a failure, even though it's a great success as an undergrad.
Plus having your own workspace is always nice. I like being able to put what I want up on my cub wall, in a shared environment this could not happen. Not a huge deal, but people do like having a place to call there own, even if it is just 3 small walls.
Yeah, that same idea was tried a couple of times here in Sweden and it didn't work. Both as in it lost the companies both money and good people, but also in that it didn't actually save any space either.
We are creatures of habit and like to mark our territory. After a few weeks everyone was back to "their" cubicle/desk and woe the miscreant that trespassed. Sure management could bitch and moan, and they did for a while, but as soon as their backs were turned people were back where they wanted to be. Social control ended up being just as powerful as a management authorized name tags.
So they changed back but not before having lost the good people (the ones that actually contribute to the productivity instead of detracting from it). Those that could left. Sun should watch out when/if the business picks up.
yes we should bring juries and judges into a combat operation and give the enemies a trial while they're shooting at us.
Well, I don't consider combat operations against an enemy in uniform (or similar) 'murder' and neither does the Geneva convention. So I don't really understand where you got the idea that I was advocating that.
Of course when there is no immediate danger they should be given due process, but its dumb to hold a trial while they're shooting at you.
That's really what we were talking about here isn't it. It's not as if the detainees in Cuba are still shooting at the US troops guarding them. Or are they?
Lest there be any misunderstanding of my position: I'm strongly opposed to the kind of behaviour the US demonstrated in Yemen, firing a hellfire missile at a vehicle containing a 'suspected terrorist' and a US citizen to boot, or the Israeli behaviour in Gaza. That's where there should be due process. And even if it is argued that there cannot be, then killing innocent bystanders in the process is still a crime, any way you look at it. The responsible should be brought to justice, given due process mind you.
I think you greatly overestimate the casual thief.
No I don't think so. The 'casual' theif in this scenario is in 99.99% of the cases an employee. And they know where the loading dock is located.
This kind of person does not operate on the abstract notion that (big company) may have (valuable items) on their loading dock.
What? If you're talking about the small time crook, they absolutely operate on this 'abstract' notion. (Where on earth you got the idea of this notion to be 'abstract' is beyond me). These are the kind of people who try office doors at lunchtime or rifle through pockets where clothes are hanging on the off chance there's wallet there.
However if you inform them that Microsoft has PowerMac G5s at XYZ Building, they may be motivated to go check it out.
Yeah, this makes sense. Look MS buys a lot of computers, those computers have to be delivered, wonder where they get delivered? It doesn't take much of brain to figure this out. It's not rocket science.
And furthermore, the security at the average loading dock is not as great as you seem to believe (although, I'm sure MS beefed it up after this incident).
Yeah, I'm sure they all of a sudden realised that people might figure out that they have computers delivered at their loading dock because someone posted a picture on the internet, and that this changed the threat picture enough that they had to fire the employee responsible, all the while not bloody getting the information off the internet! If corporate security at MS were indeed that stupid they should be behind bars, let alone fired themselves.
Look, since I work in the field of computer security at a major corporation myself, Ericsson, I know for a fact that things like loading dock security, security of deliveries and the like is foremost on the minds of any corporate security department, it's the same for the other two major corporations I've worked for, and the one my wife works for ad nauseum, all over the world. If anything it's more lax here than in the states. This is one area of security they are well versed in. Since not a few corporate security people have a background in law enforcement this is not surprising. This is incidentally also why corporate security usually don't know or understand squat about computer security instead letting that be handeled by the IT-people (who in turn usually don't know squat about security). Being on the lookout for theft, or oportunities for theft is the bread and butter of corporate security, and don't you forget it.
P.S. You're actually right that the security of the average loading dock is not up to snuff, but that's because the average loading dock is connected not to the purchaser, but to a distribution warehouse, where an astounding amount of goods go missing each day.
It's just very frustrating. Where were you guys protesting when the Taliban was killing people for owning handheld radios, because I didn't see you.
Well if you're specifically talking about me, of course you didn't see me. I'm half a world away from you. That hasn't kept me from keeping my membership in Amnesty current. Always critical of the Taliban rule in Afghanistan. And likewise of the war lords that they usurped.
But that's not really the point is it? We hold the idea of due process to be absolute (well almost), we're not the kind of moral relativists that say that "Well, they were really bad, weren't they, and we don't really agree with them so it doesn't apply to them, now does it."
Nicely summed up in the sentiment; two wrongs doesn't make a right. While the US cannot be held directly responsible for the actions of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan (even though it did have something to do with the history that put them there), it can be held responsible for its own actions. As can everyone.
I disagree, I think he was quite obviously aware that it wasn't kosher, but reasoned that two pallets of G5s wouldn't matter and so he'd get away with it. He quite explicitly states that he made an effort to ensure that nothing else was in the picture.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. The material doesn't really let us say either way. And ensuring that nothing else is in the picture could just as well be common sense. Even if you think that it's allowed, doesn't automatically mean that you must think that it's a good idea. No sense pissing people off.
I'd be willing to bet that this question was asked to determine whether charges would be filed... Taking pictures and publishing details about the campus might be a firing offense, misusing MS hardware to publish them is probably a prosecutable offense.
Well, you couldn't have supported my point any better. For a simple, benign infraction like this, you mean to say that it would actually be in the best interest of MS to fucking press charges, instead of a slap on the wrist? I'm reminded by Homer Simpson: "No son, you don't complain, you just keep your mouth shut and go back there the next day and do as piss poor a job as you can, that's the american way." (paraphrased).
If treating their employees like that is not only par for the course, but doesn't even raise any eyebrows, then I'm not surprised that we in Sweden (a country roughly the size and shape of California with under 10 million inhabitants) actually have a few megacorporations that can successfully compete in the world market against US corporations.
After all, if you treat your employees as spies/criminals and lowlifes, you can't really complain when they start to behave like that. The opposite also happens to be true.
While that might not be top secret information, good sense indicates that you don't broadcast it to the potential thieves out there.
Well if that was the case then they're just stupid. The information is still there. They didn't even ask him to remove it. If it was really secret they'd leverage the fact that he could be fired and use that to force him take the pictures down without makign a fuss.
And that's not even discussing the fact that the exact location of their loading docks is hardly a secret, nor could it be. Hint, it's where stuff gets delivered. You cannot deliver stuff to microsoft without knowing where their loading dock is located, and if you happen to be near by (or have a pair of binoculars) the trucks pulling in and out all day kind of gives the game up. The location of their loading dock is one step down in secrecy from the location of their main entrance.
And of course there's going to be valuable stuff there, it's the loading dock for heavens sake. That's why companies tend to beef up security there, installing cameras and whatnot. Keeping its location secret is not an option.
First, while the particular picture is not a big deal, maintaining a policy of not sending out pictures *is* a big deal. If people get in the habit of snapping pictures, sooner or later, important data will leak. Where I work, you just can't have cameras, and just can't take pictures. It's not unusual. Most companies won't just let you walk in and start taking pictures wherever you want.
Well, while that is true of every major corporation I've worked for, two other things are also true. First there's a great big blody sign at the entrace informing everybody of the no camera/no photography rule in force. Second I've received security training (as in having to sit through half a day of lecturing, roleplaying and whatnot) clearly stating the fact and why it's in force.
In this case the guy was obviously surprised that he couldn't bring a camera and take a snap. Now, as he doesn't say he could be a complete dofus, but I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt and guess that it was hidden among the small print of his employment contract. And there's a difference here. There may not have to be a sign against stealing on the front door because you have no reasonable expectation of being allowed to do that. You're not allowed in the rest of society. Are you generally allowed to take pictures, sure, don't need to think twice about it. If it's a firing offence that has to be stated very clearly.
And I state that if you were to fire employees for not following their NDAs employment contracts, then we'd all be out of a job. I sure couldn't have managed to hold on to a single one. Interpreted to the letter I couldn't even tell my wife that I work as a systems manager with the Ericsson GSN division, let alone you.
And that's not even taking into account the roundabout way of first asking him whether he was using an MS system to host the site.
That clearly indicates that they were out to fire him no matter what, the picture taking was really their fallback position.
We agree that the information couldn't be seen as really security important to the company, otherwise they'd request that it'd be taken down as a requirement of his continued employment. Instead they've given it more attention that it possibly could have otherwise.
Were microsoft within their rights to fire him. Sure. Is it probably a good idea to enforce a no pictures policy in any major corporation, probably. Does the way MS has handled this infraction indicate that they are cold hearted double speaking bastards, with the PR sense of baboon, you bet.
I was merely trying to demonstrate that someone who was detained in _truly_ abhorrent conditions would obviously prefer the camp that provided sufficient food and water, hygienic conditions, and reasonable accommodations of their religious needs.
Ah, well, I thought that that would go without saying.
If you are going to be detained, there are far worse places to be. That was the extent of my analogy. My estimation of the conditions of the camps are based on the word of the various human rights organizations that the U.S. government aquisced to and allowed to inspect them. Prisoners have a right to be treated humanely, but they don't have a right to not be prisoners, per se.
Of course there are worse places to be. The question here would be who the richest country on earth would have to compare itself with to come out ahead. I'd put the bar a little (a lot actually) higher than the archetypical Nazi death camp. Prison conditions in the US itself for example. Already a step down from western European conditions.
I know that's not what you meant here, but I also don't really agree in general with the sentiment that they don't have a "right to not be prisoners per se", since that's really the rub in this case. I'm not fond of the idea of incarcerating (or murdering) people without any form of due process. Even in the case of a POW you have to be an identified member of the opposing force, and you cannot detain those indefinately once hostilities have ceased. That's problematic here, these prisoners aren't necessarily identifiable as AlQueada operatives, there's no saying if hostilities with AlQuead have ceased (or indeed if AlQuead still exists in any reasonable form).
And if they aren't to be treated as POWs they IMHO should be treated according to the law of the land, i.e. charged and tried in a court of law or released. As it is now they're in limbo.
After the watchful eyes left for all we know, the rubber hose beating continued. The real issue at hand is, we just don't know what's going on down there. I'm probably at least as bothered by that as you are, so don't get me wrong.
Hear, hear. I guess my complaint could be summed up with the words "due process", either civilian or military, and by "military" I mean as codified in international convention not 'summarily executed.'
I don't know the price of electricity in California, but if 30 watts costs $5.00, you're suggesting each 100 watt lightbulb in my house is costing me $17.00 in electricity?
I'm not from California so I wouldn't know, but in any case you're not running those lightbulbs 24/7 are you? If you don't then you're not spending that amount.
Where I live (Sweden) 30W continous for a month would cost me about $2.88 (if electricity wasn't included in the rent), so $5 doesn't sound completely unreasonable.
I guess the lesson here is that running electric apliances continously adds up.
I wouldn't say 10 years. Remember, the first GSM network went up in 1992, and I doubt that 20% of Europeans had GSM phones by 1993.
Yes, I was thinking of the most saturated region in Europe: Scandinavia, and the analog Nordic NMT system which really taught us mobile phones. Mobile phones were kind of old hat when GSM was (finally) introduced. NMT was actually good enough that it threatened GSM uptake. (But then GSM phones quickly sported longer stand by times, and got smaller so GSM got off the ground). By '93 the phones had started ringing in the lecture halls of my university even if they weren't yet a complete nuisance...
As for the cost, I can only conclude that we can tolerate a higher cost here than you can.
Now, as for the explanations I've heard at work, it's mostly boils down to: a) paying for incoming calls which made (relatively) early adopters relucant to leave their phone number to people and b) not standardising the roaming interfaces leading to incompatible systems where users were locked (phone and all) to one operator. I notice that you don't mention either. Maybe the situation has changed enough.
It'll be interesting to see how the battle for the 80% you speak of will turn out. Having saturated the market for adults in Europe, the attention turned to the children (and Ericsson, unable to shift gears, lost it's mobile phone division in the process). Just about then SMS also took off, it's where's all the action is today, and hence the hope that 3G/GPRS will be saved by SMS' big brother MMS (and with integrated cameras it just might IMHO). May you live in interesting times and all that...:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, perhaps I should have been more clear. There's still a drunk cell, plenty of them in fact. It just houses a single occupant.
I couldn't comment on the standard though, as I've managed to stay out of them so far. :-)
Careful. They're not used to crime (their police don't even routinely carry guns), you'll stand out too much!
Well, then, thanks for not referring to the events in 1905 as "breaking free from despotic royal rule".
Don't mind you slagging the Danes though. :-)
Well, not really. The police can question you for 6+6 hours (you have the right to the lawyer of your choice), and then they have to press some form of charges. After that a "custody hearing" has to take place "as soon as possible, though no later than 48 hours after being taken in custody". There a judge will decide if the case against you is strong enough to go to trial at all (at that time), or if the charges are severe enough and there is sufficient risk of flight or disturbing the investigation, that you should remain incarcerated pending trial.
So it's not unlike the US system only that there is no bail. In the cases were a US judge would deny bail a Swede would be held in custody, and in the cases where the US judge would say "bail set at", the Swede would go free, withouth having to pay any bail.
If the trial comes out "innocent", then you will be compensated (quite handsomely) for the time spent incarcerated, so it's a form of bail in reverse. You don't pay to stay out of jail, you get paid to spend time in jail. :-)
Also, if you haven't been convicted of a crime you won't see any other prisoners, there's no "drunk tank" or similar here. You get single accomodation, both when arrested and in jail. So there's no risk of "innocent" people being forced to spend time with real criminals.
Well, I don't know the specifics about Norway, but in Sweden it is one prosecutor. However, he is also formally the head of the police investigation team, so he has some help there also. As such he has a sworn duty to try and find the truth, and hence if he uncovers anything that would tend to exhonorate the defendant he has to take that into account in trial as well (i.e. has to make it known to the court), so at least in theory he's (to some small extent) working for you in court as well, though in practice it may not be perfect.
Note though that the prosecutor is a civil servant, i.e. not elected, so you won't see "show trials" just for the publicity. Prosecutors are fairly anonymous people here.
Also, there's often another lawyer on the prosecutors "team", that's there to represent the interests of the victim, not the state, in cases where damages to the victim may be awarded (we don't typically do a separate civil suit for that, though there's nothing stoping it in theory). Thus the verdict can come down as "three years in prison, a fine and damages paid to the victims). I don't know if that's done in the US?
It's not a perfect system. But on balance it's not a bad system either.
They have to. The next higher court (the "highest court") is the last stop. No case can go further. If the high court decides to hear it (as they probably should) then it becomes a precedent.
P.S. And they aren't retrials per se. The Norwegian, and Swedish, legal systems allow for a maximum of three trials in succedingly higher courts. And only the highest court can set a precedent.
Also, no plea bargains, no jury (only laypersons that sit for a longer term), no bail, and the state pays for your lawyer of choice who can claim according to a set (fairly generous) standard (there are no criminal attorneys that operate outside of that system).
Whatever.
Well, if you had actually known anything about anything, you'd know that save for the Angolosaxons (on both sides of the Atlantic, we've already had the revolution. And we're doing quite fine as a result thank you very much.
"What a start to a day / starts three times with a K", comes to mind. I'm afraid we tried the "revolution" you're after in the thirties in Europe, and we didn't much care for it.
But since we're not trying to have a civil conversation anyway, why not just decend into name calling and be done with it. You sir, are a fuckwit.
Well, yes that's true. But that should actually strenghten my argument right? The average is higher than the US despite the fact that there are large areas that are virtually uninhabited. Which I guess is true of the US as well, but fact remains that barring the urban centers, you have more space than us. We don't have a problem with urban sprawl in central Europe. There simply isn't anywhere to sprawl to.
And I'm not sure we were desperately poor even going back a century and a half. Sweden in particular has always had raw materials such as iron ore and lumber. We weren't a technological society though, that's true. (But that was true of most of Europe as well). Industrialisation left a lot of people without a job which we conveniently exported to the USA, about 1/5 of Swedens population at the time emigrated.
Keeping out of wars I would say was more a result of having the socialist revolution in 1920 (the first bloodless one, through the socialist democratic workers party winning the 1920 elections; btw only men of means could vote then which is interesting). Sweden has had it share of wars before that, having been a superpower, and had our population almost eradicated in parts of Sweden as a result. "Never again."
You're right about Americans going to the same vaccation spots we do, i.e. southern Spain, Italy, parts of southern France and the like and judging "Europe" by it. Fact of the matter is that the same "socialism" is in effect in the EU, Sweden paying billions each year that gets transferred to poorer regions to keep them afloat.
It would be as if we judged all of the US by what's shown on Bay watch. Or in my case from upstate NewYork. I've been to Troy New York, didn't make the US seem very affluent. (And incidentally, don't worry about the light in which the US is put through Baywatch, we see it as the sun-and-fun lightweight story it is/was. If you want to worry, worry about Jerry Springer and his ilk. Much worse/more effective propaganda, and it works an many levels to).
This is so backwards I don't even know where to begin (and BTW the top margin tax in Sweden is 55% not 75%, 10% of the workforce pay it. Like in that's the definition of how many pay it, so of course, "too few people make enough", we set the cut off to make it the top 10% The rest pay around 30% income tax.). And I live here, and have likewise travelled extensively in the US. Comparing with the american part of the family yes, they make a lot more money, that can't buy them one iota more of standard, since the cost of living is much higher. The GDP as a means of doing comparisons isn't all that's it's cranked up to be.
You also have to realise that much of the difference in material wealth between the well to do Swede and the well to do American is a matter of culture and choice. We're just not as consumerist as you. We don't hang in malls growing up, we don't work overtime to be able to afford more useless crap to nearly the same extent you do.
But don't take my word for it, check out the studies where Sweden or the other nordic countries always and consitenly rank better than the US as a better place to live, work, be a mother, you name it. Hit Google, you know you want to.
If I were an American I know that I wouldn't have an education (to the level I have now, I simply couldn't have aforded it), I'd most likely be out of a job as a result thereof, and therefore not even have access to health care. How the hell would that be better, and make me able to "better use my abilities"?
And if you're like most Americans the shockingly low standard of living has more to do with the differences in living space than anything else. Newsflash, Europe is twice as heavily populated as the US, there's simply no room to sprawl (cities/houses/fat arses) they way you do.
Well, I canot remember if I said it that strongly, but in either case I didn't mean that in the absolute. PhD students don't tend to work on hard problems because it's not the smart thing to do, you'd be rightly discouraged. Your own anecdote even corroborates that. Had he choosen a different problem he'd be out of there already, on to bigger and better things.
I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing, someone has to tackle the difficult stuff otherwise we'll never make any progress. I'm just pointing out that even though many belive that PhD students are the ones doing this, that's not really true. They're few and far between, and that's not surprising, since doing that leads to a failed PhD more often than not, and that's a shame on good people when it happens. It's the people at the very beginning (i.e. before they start their PhD work), or at the very end (i.e. after their retirement, if you can talk of such in academia) that have time to spend on the long odds investigations. Didn't Einstein spend the last 15 years of his life chasing after a unification of his earlier theories? He never came even close, but at that point that didn't matter.
Well, you're actually technically wrong on both counts. First according to the dept's webpage she's not a PhD student, she's a teaching assistant (amanuens). And thus her job is actually to teach, not to do research.
No doubt she was given the amanuensis position in anticipation of becoming a PhD student, but since Sweden changed their PhD acceptance criteria, departments have become wary of accepting students (there aren't as many positions available these days). (My own department for example had 120 applicants for four positions this year, you basically had to have published papers to even get in as a PhD student). Hence departments like to pull stunts such as these, i.e. hiring someone beforehand as e.g. a TA (or similar) to see if they can do the work before comitting to taking them on. I'd say she passed... :-)
As to why students (as in undergrads) have come up with breakthroughs as of late my own theory is that they are the ones that can actually work on these problems, having nothing to lose. As a PhD student that's not a smart thing to do, see my other post on this topic.
Well, almost (depending on who you define 'it', granted). PhD students also have time, but if you were to go to your supervisor and exclaim you want to work on 'famous' problems you'd be discouraged, and rightly so. The thing with being a PhD student is that you're supposed to do work that will lead to publications, and spending time on something that's been researched for a hundred years isn't likely to.
For an undergrad though, the situation is different. If you were to say to the same supervisor that you'd like to work on a famous problems they'd be all for it. They wouldn't think you'd make any progress on the solution but it'd be a great learning experience, and since your survival is guaranteed by other means, it's quite OK to fail.
Compare Turing if you will, who as an undergrad proved the law of large numbers (if memory serves). That had already been proven twenty years earlier, but Turing didn't know about that result. Hence his professors were quite impressed with his results, and as a result admitted him for higher studies. As a modern day PhD student that would have been a failure, even though it's a great success as an undergrad.
Yeah, that same idea was tried a couple of times here in Sweden and it didn't work. Both as in it lost the companies both money and good people, but also in that it didn't actually save any space either.
We are creatures of habit and like to mark our territory. After a few weeks everyone was back to "their" cubicle/desk and woe the miscreant that trespassed. Sure management could bitch and moan, and they did for a while, but as soon as their backs were turned people were back where they wanted to be. Social control ended up being just as powerful as a management authorized name tags.
So they changed back but not before having lost the good people (the ones that actually contribute to the productivity instead of detracting from it). Those that could left. Sun should watch out when/if the business picks up.
Well, I don't consider combat operations against an enemy in uniform (or similar) 'murder' and neither does the Geneva convention. So I don't really understand where you got the idea that I was advocating that.
That's really what we were talking about here isn't it. It's not as if the detainees in Cuba are still shooting at the US troops guarding them. Or are they?
Lest there be any misunderstanding of my position: I'm strongly opposed to the kind of behaviour the US demonstrated in Yemen, firing a hellfire missile at a vehicle containing a 'suspected terrorist' and a US citizen to boot, or the Israeli behaviour in Gaza. That's where there should be due process. And even if it is argued that there cannot be, then killing innocent bystanders in the process is still a crime, any way you look at it. The responsible should be brought to justice, given due process mind you.
No I don't think so. The 'casual' theif in this scenario is in 99.99% of the cases an employee. And they know where the loading dock is located.
What? If you're talking about the small time crook, they absolutely operate on this 'abstract' notion. (Where on earth you got the idea of this notion to be 'abstract' is beyond me). These are the kind of people who try office doors at lunchtime or rifle through pockets where clothes are hanging on the off chance there's wallet there.
Yeah, this makes sense. Look MS buys a lot of computers, those computers have to be delivered, wonder where they get delivered? It doesn't take much of brain to figure this out. It's not rocket science.
Yeah, I'm sure they all of a sudden realised that people might figure out that they have computers delivered at their loading dock because someone posted a picture on the internet, and that this changed the threat picture enough that they had to fire the employee responsible, all the while not bloody getting the information off the internet! If corporate security at MS were indeed that stupid they should be behind bars, let alone fired themselves.
Look, since I work in the field of computer security at a major corporation myself, Ericsson, I know for a fact that things like loading dock security, security of deliveries and the like is foremost on the minds of any corporate security department, it's the same for the other two major corporations I've worked for, and the one my wife works for ad nauseum, all over the world. If anything it's more lax here than in the states. This is one area of security they are well versed in. Since not a few corporate security people have a background in law enforcement this is not surprising. This is incidentally also why corporate security usually don't know or understand squat about computer security instead letting that be handeled by the IT-people (who in turn usually don't know squat about security). Being on the lookout for theft, or oportunities for theft is the bread and butter of corporate security, and don't you forget it.
P.S. You're actually right that the security of the average loading dock is not up to snuff, but that's because the average loading dock is connected not to the purchaser, but to a distribution warehouse, where an astounding amount of goods go missing each day.
Well if you're specifically talking about me, of course you didn't see me. I'm half a world away from you. That hasn't kept me from keeping my membership in Amnesty current. Always critical of the Taliban rule in Afghanistan. And likewise of the war lords that they usurped.
But that's not really the point is it? We hold the idea of due process to be absolute (well almost), we're not the kind of moral relativists that say that "Well, they were really bad, weren't they, and we don't really agree with them so it doesn't apply to them, now does it."
Nicely summed up in the sentiment; two wrongs doesn't make a right. While the US cannot be held directly responsible for the actions of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan (even though it did have something to do with the history that put them there), it can be held responsible for its own actions. As can everyone.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. The material doesn't really let us say either way. And ensuring that nothing else is in the picture could just as well be common sense. Even if you think that it's allowed, doesn't automatically mean that you must think that it's a good idea. No sense pissing people off.
Well, you couldn't have supported my point any better. For a simple, benign infraction like this, you mean to say that it would actually be in the best interest of MS to fucking press charges, instead of a slap on the wrist? I'm reminded by Homer Simpson: "No son, you don't complain, you just keep your mouth shut and go back there the next day and do as piss poor a job as you can, that's the american way." (paraphrased).
If treating their employees like that is not only par for the course, but doesn't even raise any eyebrows, then I'm not surprised that we in Sweden (a country roughly the size and shape of California with under 10 million inhabitants) actually have a few megacorporations that can successfully compete in the world market against US corporations.
After all, if you treat your employees as spies/criminals and lowlifes, you can't really complain when they start to behave like that. The opposite also happens to be true.
Well if that was the case then they're just stupid. The information is still there. They didn't even ask him to remove it. If it was really secret they'd leverage the fact that he could be fired and use that to force him take the pictures down without makign a fuss.
And that's not even discussing the fact that the exact location of their loading docks is hardly a secret, nor could it be. Hint, it's where stuff gets delivered. You cannot deliver stuff to microsoft without knowing where their loading dock is located, and if you happen to be near by (or have a pair of binoculars) the trucks pulling in and out all day kind of gives the game up. The location of their loading dock is one step down in secrecy from the location of their main entrance.
And of course there's going to be valuable stuff there, it's the loading dock for heavens sake. That's why companies tend to beef up security there, installing cameras and whatnot. Keeping its location secret is not an option.
Well, while that is true of every major corporation I've worked for, two other things are also true. First there's a great big blody sign at the entrace informing everybody of the no camera/no photography rule in force. Second I've received security training (as in having to sit through half a day of lecturing, roleplaying and whatnot) clearly stating the fact and why it's in force.
In this case the guy was obviously surprised that he couldn't bring a camera and take a snap. Now, as he doesn't say he could be a complete dofus, but I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt and guess that it was hidden among the small print of his employment contract. And there's a difference here. There may not have to be a sign against stealing on the front door because you have no reasonable expectation of being allowed to do that. You're not allowed in the rest of society. Are you generally allowed to take pictures, sure, don't need to think twice about it. If it's a firing offence that has to be stated very clearly.
And I state that if you were to fire employees for not following their NDAs employment contracts, then we'd all be out of a job. I sure couldn't have managed to hold on to a single one. Interpreted to the letter I couldn't even tell my wife that I work as a systems manager with the Ericsson GSN division, let alone you.
And that's not even taking into account the roundabout way of first asking him whether he was using an MS system to host the site.
That clearly indicates that they were out to fire him no matter what, the picture taking was really their fallback position.
We agree that the information couldn't be seen as really security important to the company, otherwise they'd request that it'd be taken down as a requirement of his continued employment. Instead they've given it more attention that it possibly could have otherwise.
Were microsoft within their rights to fire him. Sure. Is it probably a good idea to enforce a no pictures policy in any major corporation, probably. Does the way MS has handled this infraction indicate that they are cold hearted double speaking bastards, with the PR sense of baboon, you bet.
Oh yes it does, it's called a vasectomy, and it works once and for all once you've had the kids you plan to have.
Not all medical technology relies on popping pills.
Ah, well, I thought that that would go without saying.
Of course there are worse places to be. The question here would be who the richest country on earth would have to compare itself with to come out ahead. I'd put the bar a little (a lot actually) higher than the archetypical Nazi death camp. Prison conditions in the US itself for example. Already a step down from western European conditions.
I know that's not what you meant here, but I also don't really agree in general with the sentiment that they don't have a "right to not be prisoners per se", since that's really the rub in this case. I'm not fond of the idea of incarcerating (or murdering) people without any form of due process. Even in the case of a POW you have to be an identified member of the opposing force, and you cannot detain those indefinately once hostilities have ceased. That's problematic here, these prisoners aren't necessarily identifiable as AlQueada operatives, there's no saying if hostilities with AlQuead have ceased (or indeed if AlQuead still exists in any reasonable form).
And if they aren't to be treated as POWs they IMHO should be treated according to the law of the land, i.e. charged and tried in a court of law or released. As it is now they're in limbo.
Hear, hear. I guess my complaint could be summed up with the words "due process", either civilian or military, and by "military" I mean as codified in international convention not 'summarily executed.'
Are you sure that's who you want to compare yourself with? "At least we aren't any worse than the Nazis" isn't really aiming very high, is it?
After all Auschwitz wasn't even a POW camp (well technically, it was that too, but Auschwitz Birkenau wasn't).
I'm not from California so I wouldn't know, but in any case you're not running those lightbulbs 24/7 are you? If you don't then you're not spending that amount.
Where I live (Sweden) 30W continous for a month would cost me about $2.88 (if electricity wasn't included in the rent), so $5 doesn't sound completely unreasonable.
I guess the lesson here is that running electric apliances continously adds up.
Yes, I was thinking of the most saturated region in Europe: Scandinavia, and the analog Nordic NMT system which really taught us mobile phones. Mobile phones were kind of old hat when GSM was (finally) introduced. NMT was actually good enough that it threatened GSM uptake. (But then GSM phones quickly sported longer stand by times, and got smaller so GSM got off the ground). By '93 the phones had started ringing in the lecture halls of my university even if they weren't yet a complete nuisance...
As for the cost, I can only conclude that we can tolerate a higher cost here than you can.
Now, as for the explanations I've heard at work, it's mostly boils down to: a) paying for incoming calls which made (relatively) early adopters relucant to leave their phone number to people and b) not standardising the roaming interfaces leading to incompatible systems where users were locked (phone and all) to one operator. I notice that you don't mention either. Maybe the situation has changed enough.
It'll be interesting to see how the battle for the 80% you speak of will turn out. Having saturated the market for adults in Europe, the attention turned to the children (and Ericsson, unable to shift gears, lost it's mobile phone division in the process). Just about then SMS also took off, it's where's all the action is today, and hence the hope that 3G/GPRS will be saved by SMS' big brother MMS (and with integrated cameras it just might IMHO). May you live in interesting times and all that... :-)